Thanks for your reply bcglorf,

To clear up my analogy, I was actually speaking about the power, tolerance and bravery of women and the thick headedness and cowardice of men who are abusers.

Sometimes you need to find a language that can be understood.

I also think reasonable people believe that any action taken against them should be met with equal and opposite reaction.

Somewhere I posted a quote from the movie Tora, Tora, Tora, which I altered to fit the present conversations.

The quote was said to have been made by Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto regarding the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

It's debated if he actually said it but it was something that I remembered and thought it fit well with recent events with the altered quote.

My altered quote is:

I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giantess and fill her with a terrible resolve.


Women (giantess) are coming together, along with men, more than ever before and rightly so.

I never said or implied anything about ridicule or attacks.

Thanks again for your reply and I think we both are on the same side.

Ha! Came to reply to you, only to find this was actually my long forgotten post! Thanks for the double promote.

In the competition, I say if we're going to fuck it up, go all in and shoot for Venus level warming.

Jakson's Twitter reply to this was pretty awesome!

Love your reply and POV. You got it pretty much 100% right IMO. I admit, as I Christian, I went in from a far more cynical perspective because this "wholly uninterested god" is way different from the God of the Bible. Not that God didn't bring some crazy disasters on humans in the OT, but damn, not this way or purpose as in the videos.

I don't mind people mocking God or Christians or overly religious zealots of any faith. Many are wholly deserved to be mocked. People (that includes me, God knows I'm a dumbass, lol) need to be held responsible for their own crap & offensiveness and be called out.

Still, I feel this series is not helping any discussion, just good for a laugh (maybe?) and some decent video editing & production. It's harmless if seen as a philosophical piece.

I'd love to see some intelligent, cool-headed no-trolling discussions on the pros & cons, history & evolution of religion and such. But it's really tough when religion is so politicized (especially in the USA) and often hijacked for self-serving purposes. (Godly man Roy Moore my ass!)

I live in Canada, and I would call myself a Christian in public here, but in the US? No freaking way... it's not out of fear of being mocked and anything... it's that I hardly see me as anything similar to those "evangelicals" from my own limited exposure to them in US media. It's like they're a different (offensive) beast.

I'm back as I said I may be. It took a little longer than I thought.

Well, that's a very adult reply from you. Actually walking away?

We'll see.

I'm off again. This time for only 2.5 months.

I hate this guy and his channel passionately. He's making tons of youtube bux torturing and killing various animals, primarily rodents. He's one of those "survivalist" wackjobs who has somehow found a enormous audience of people who seem to like watching videos of animals in pain.

And before anyone replies with something utterly moronic like, "dood relax their jus mice okey", I know what they are and I know that they struggle against losing their lives just as earnestly as humans do.

old joke:

A tourist is walking along the pier in an Irish fishing village. He sees a fisherman with a bucket full of lobsters. The bucket is so full that the lobsters could easily get over the edge, so he says to the fishermen "excuse me, aren't you worried that some of the lobsters will climb out and escape?".

"Nah" the fisherman replies.

"These are Irish lobsters. As soon as one of them gets to the top, the other will pull him right back down again"

Almost every day I'll meet with grieving families or a loved one.

In my job, "I see dead people." I also pick up and transport them no matter how they died. I do body removals. A body snatcher if you will.

When I pick up a military veteran, the last thing I do before I leave with a family's loved one, is place the American flag over the covered corpse. This instantly turns their grief into pride.

In some instances, if the loved one isn't a veteran, I'll simply ask what's the one thing about (insert name here) that's made you the proudest?

Sometimes I have to be careful asking that question because the answer can be very time consuming.

This is also one of those jobs where "It's my pleasure" isn't an appropriate reply after they thank you.

Actually, that was a typo which was overlooked. Originally it was, right to bar arms, but it was too late to correct as the Constitution had already gone press.

When asked about the error the founding fathers could only reply, "Oh, well."

Dude you are so toxic.... trying to now bait me into arguing about the definition of plant based lol because I didn't engage with your FOX news like hyperbole above, you figured you'd keep poking until you at least get something.

All I can say is thanks, because every time your reply you help spread this vegan message.

Bob, you're reply couldn't be dumber.

Arpaio isn't placating him, he's agreeing, having no idea what he's agreeing with, that's the MO of the right today. If a right wing nut says anything, they vehemently agree, even when they cannot make heads or tails out of the nonsense the nut job said.

Sad that so many ignorant fools still support this ignorant fool who's proud he created a concentration camp for people waiting for court where many innocent people have died.

I wish you would get pulled over and falsely accused of something in his district to experience his form of law and order for yourselves.

Feel free to reply, nothing is more American than putting down your own government in a show of free speech.

Please try to stick to primary sources as I mostly have.

Thanks for the reply. There's a part of me that wishes I had that much time to waste, but unfortunately not.

You're probably not interested in the details, but for what it's worth I first signed in during a time of heavy crunch at work. After that never really stuck around to become a member of the community, or any community for that matter. Work was taking its toll.

At the moment I'm getting ready to move country, again, so on the odd day I can spare some time. For whatever reason I ended up at an old site I used to visit (bluesnews) which lead me back here.

Now, back into hiding for X amount of years as work continues to beat me into submission

The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

Yep, a comedian on a comedy tour taking a joke picture pretending to assault a sleeping woman who then quit of his own accord is exactly the same as a long term pedophile who enjoys his parties full support and never backs down or apologizes even after losing, or a philanderer who blackmail his mistress by taking naked pictures of her tied up and threatening to make them public then fights removal.

There is no equivalency. There's not a monopoly on one side, no, but there's absolutely not "every bit as much corruption and dishonesty on the Democrat side of politics as there is on the Republican". Republican dishonesty is about selling the country to Russia and raiding the treasury, and hiding or excusing inexcusable behavior and permeates everything they say. Democratic dishonesty is about which email account an email came from and pretending the leadership has no bias, and bowing to hyper sensitivity and disingenuous faux outrage.

For example...
Asked how his tax plan benefits the rich, he replied....
Trump: "No, I don't benefit. I don't benefit. In fact, very very strongly, as you see, I think there's very little benefit for people of wealth."

When asked about his rich friends....
"They can call me all they want; not going to help," he said Sept. 27, 2017. "I'm doing the right thing and it's not good for me, believe me."

When asked about the Trump zero tolerance plan to tear families apart as a political ploy, Trump claimed the Democrats did it and only they can reverse it, then he reversed his plan himself proving both family destroying lies to be lies.

The consistency, levels, and importance of the dishonesty from Republicans is exponentially greater than that from Democrats, who are far from perfect themselves.

Edit: Btw, Mahr has addressed the issue of him running for office repeatedly, he's capable and intelligent enough to be honest and say he's a horrible politician and would probably never run, and he knows he's far more influential exactly where he is than he might be as a freshman representative.....and he's smart enough to see that a candidate that gets out the vote for the opposition (like Clinton) is a horrendously stupid idea.
And Franken worked out great until he caved to false outrage and quit while pedophiles and abusive philanderers were welcomed into the opposing party feigning the outrage over a funny (but disrespectful) picture.